Nothing as It Seems

Earlier this year, the Government announced that they are preparing new laws to regulate surrogacy and the broader area of assisted human reproduction. The draft legislation will contain proposals to regulate surrogacy in Ireland for the first time, and will include an obligation for commissioning parents and surrogate mothers to give their consent and have counselling prior to any arrangement. Yet the legislation is expected to include a ban on commercial surrogacy—an arrangement where the surrogate mother receives a payment for bearing and giving birth to a child, on the condition that she eventually hands over the child, as well as the parental rights and responsibilities, to the commissioning couple. The legislation will only permit non-commercial surrogacy (or altruistic surrogacy), where surrogates receive no financial gain—although a reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs will be permitted. In an interview with RTÉ around the same time as the announcement, the Heal...

It emerged just recently that doctors in an Irish hospital are seeking legal advice over whether they can switch off the life support machine of a woman who is 16 weeks pregnant . The woman, believed to be in her mid to late 20s, suffered a head trauma and a clot to the brain a number of weeks ago. The family of the woman—who is reported as clinically “brain dead,” but still undeniably a living human organism*—want the medical team to allow her to die. Even though there’s no chance of revival, doctors and medical staff at the hospital are reluctant to carry out her family’s wishes because she is about 16 weeks pregnant. In order to save the life of the foetus, sustaining the mother until a Caesarean section can be carried out would be required. Some people have asked why life-support is not turned off in this case.  Conor O’Mahony, a lecturer of law at UCC, wrote in the Irish Examiner that “ [w]hile the Supreme Court has held that people have a constitutional right to...

An version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , March-April, Vol. 151 (2015)   Incest is something most people find morally objectionable and it's one of the most common of all cultural taboos. The British Medical Association’s Complete Family Health Encyclopaedia (1990) defines incest as “ intercourse between close relatives,” that usually includes “intercourse with a parent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, an uncle or aunt, a nephew or niece, a grandparent or grandchild.” The Oxford English Dictionary ’s definition is a little broader: it doesn’t confine incest to just intercourse, but to “sexual relations between people classified as being too closely related to marry each other.”    Most countries have some kind of law against incest—though consensual adult incest is not a crime in France, Spain, Russia the Netherlands, and a host of countries in South America. In England and Wales, however, t he Sexual Offences Act 2003 ...

A version of this article was printed in  Humanism Ireland , May-June, Vol. 146 (2014) The notion that our moral intuitions possess epistemic authority has been associated with a number of philosophers within the canon of Western thought.  Roughly speaking, these thinkers have argued that our intuitions have recourse to a unique authority of perception that yields special access to a sphere of moral legitimacy. Others, however, have claimed that our intuitions are incredibly diverse and often conflict with each other—for example, your intuition says assisted suicide is morally permissible and my intuition says it’s wrong. But it seems the two contrasting intuitions cannot both be right. At the same time, most of us think our own moral intuitions are right : they do not seem inconsistent to us, and we have a strong sense to believe them. Accordingly, they strike us as correct. Undoubtedly, moral intuitions can be shaped by our particular culture, environment or co...